What's the meaning of life

[Cavegirl]

Call it a grotesque form of doublethink, but I think it is possible to understand that in the objective grand scheme of things the murder of a human by another human is insignificant but at the same time acknowledge your own subjective existence as a human being and therefore accept the moral code that does deem it significant and unacceptable.

 

The latter I think is about valuing this overwhelming urge to maintain what gives you the very means to explore your being. As I don't want my life cut short, at least from the perspective of being alive, I enter into the social contract that will help protect me from threats against that. It's selfish and has no objective significance, but then I do not live my life objectively.

 

Wow Piph, what a grotesque form of doublethink

 

You're right of course, it's whatever social construct we feel is the most appropriate to cling to at the moment that gives us a sense of meaning in what we increasingly perceive to be a wider meaningless universe. I think that if the externality is meaningless then we can balance this by making ourselves meaningful by whatever means serves us best at the time. At the moment I think we're best served by focussing on our beleaguered environment.

[flamingjimmy]

Haha FJ, I wonder whether one day we'll find something we actually do agree on?

 

There has to be meaning to life because nihilism is a destructive force in society. You can read some Nietzsche for an academic explanation or you can read the philosophies and stories of the Marquis de Sade for a glimpse into what the world might be like if we were all true nihilists- as this is what he was aiming for.

 

If I truly stopped valuing life (this is true nihilism) and all of its inherent factors why would I care if I murdered someone- their life has no value or meaning to me? Why would I even care about living seeing as my life had no value or meaning?

 

What you believe in, like me probably, is a very diluted form of nihilism I'm sure, well at least I hope. We all can comprehend the fact that one day the earth will be swallowed by the sun, we all can comprehend our place in the universe, but most people are too sensible to take that last step and decide that because of this nothing matters or has value in our lives.

Exactly, that was kind of my point.

 

Things do matter, and our lives do have value, it's just that they only matter to us and only have value to us. They don't matter to the universe, or even the rest of the world sometimes.

 

I guess I'm just arguing that 'pure nihilism' is extremely rare. Nihilism lite is far more common and doesn't lead to a breakdown of society, just an appreciation of our place in the universe.

 

As for your second main point- do you believe that pharmacists conjure up medications from the ether? Of course not. All medications are chemicals and all chemicals are made up of natural elements. Traditional medicine is based upon traditional practices, people have just tried to sell it as being 'more natural'. All medicines are natural- they are all made of matter from the natural world, some are just better than others. A lot of modern medicines are based upon traditional knowledge, but this has been enhanced to understand the exact chemical formula. Sometimes however, the new chemical compositions that humans come up with are toxic to humans just as happens in nature.

I am absolutely aware of this. The difference is actual medicines are natural remedies that have been streamlined to contain only the actual remedy as well as having been tested and proven to be effective.

 

This argument of yours to me only backs up my whole premise that the idea that natural is better is ludicrous. Its too hard to even define natural, are medicines produced in laboratories but derived originally from natural sources truly natural?

 

If so, what on earth is unnatural? Because when you think about it, everything is sourced from natural products.

 

I think your point about stem cell research is completely valid, it's not perceived as natural, but it is still potentially beneficial so I should probably have clarified that point. I was thinking more about the growing awareness of our relationship with the natural world rather than a nature vs science debate.

Fair enough.

 

Having a belief that nature should be protected because it is there to provide sustenance and life is not the same as mystifying or deifying it. It just calls for an acceptance that if we destroy or manipulate it in a method that's out of balance with conserving and preserving it then we're all pretty much doomed anyhow and pure nihilism will be the only course left to us. It's on this basis that I think seeing ourselves as guardians and caretakers of the earth's resources would provide a beneficial, all-encompassing and therefore unifying meaning to life.

I was with you up until the last sentence. I really don't see how that provides a basis for an all encompassing meaning of life. It provides a basis for conservation, but not for a complete meaning of life, certainly not.

[Cavegirl]

I was with you up until the last sentence. I really don't see how that provides a basis for an all encompassing meaning of life. It provides a basis for conservation, but not for a complete meaning of life, certainly not.

 

Well it kind of is a reason for life whether you want it to be or not, as such it deserves to be a meaning of life. The environment is our means of survival on this planet, without it we're all dead and there really is no meaning to life. I thought that that was the point that McCarthy made very well in his book.

[hard2miss]

Call it a grotesque form of doublethink, but I think it is possible to understand that in the objective grand scheme of things the murder of a human by another human is insignificant but at the same time acknowledge your own subjective existence as a human being and therefore accept the moral code that does deem it significant and unacceptable.

 

The latter I think is about valuing this overwhelming urge to maintain what gives you the very means to explore your being. As I don't want my life cut short, at least from the perspective of being alive, I enter into the social contract that will help protect me from threats against that. It's selfish and has no objective significance, but then I do not live my life objectively.

Totaly agree with that line of thought.

[flamingjimmy]

Well it kind of is a reason for life whether you want it to be or not, as such it deserves to be a meaning of life. The environment is our means of survival on this planet, without it we're all dead and there really is no meaning to life. I thought that that was the point that McCarthy made very well in his book.

 

But if that's your argument then you aren't really arguing that protecting nature is the meaning of life, it can be simplified from that.

 

Your argument simplified is that survival is the meaning of life, seeing as the only reason you've given for protecting nature is that it enable us to survive.

[hard2miss]

But if that's your argument then you aren't really arguing that protecting nature is the meaning of life, it can be simplified from that.

 

Your argument simplified is that survival is the meaning of life, seeing as the only reason you've given for protecting nature is that it enable us to survive.

In effect 'life is life'.

 

Ang on, all we had to do was listen to that song for the answer !

 

na nar nar na nar life is life...

[danot]

Well it kind of is a reason for life whether you want it to be or not, as such it deserves to be a meaning of life. The environment is our means of survival on this planet, without it we're all dead and there really is no meaning to life. I thought that that was the point that McCarthy made very well in his book.

However, the the earth/environment isn't reliant on our maintenance of it, the environment is self reliant, self Aware if you like. Any damage the we(HUMANS) leave behind will be rectified in time. We're not needed, at the very most, we're just proving to be a bad case of acne(so to speak) that the earth will undoubtedly overcome.

[flamingjimmy]

However, the the earth/environment isn't reliant on our maintenance of it, the environment is self reliant, self Aware if you like. Any damage the we(HUMANS) leave behind will be rectified in time. We're not needed, at the very most, we're just proving to be a bad case of acne(so to speak) that the earth will undoubtedly overcome.

 

Another good point, assigning ourselves as "guardians and caretakers of the earth" is kind of arrogant, I agree that we have a responsibility to protect the environment, but this is a responsibility we give ourselves. Nature doesn't need us, it'll be fine, sure we may cause some sort of disaster eventually, with some sort of mass extinction event perhaps, but life will go on, nature will survive.

[Cavegirl]

But if that's your argument then you aren't really arguing that protecting nature is the meaning of life, it can be simplified from that.

 

Your argument simplified is that survival is the meaning of life, seeing as the only reason you've given for protecting nature is that it enable us to survive.

 

Haha what do you mean by saying "the only reason you've given for protecting nature is that it enable [sic] us to survive"- what on earth is the point in discussing the meaning of life if we, subjectively, are not intent on surviving for as long as we can?

 

What I've been saying is that we have lost any sense of an all-encompassing meaning of life, one that is applicable to us all. We can of course, all find subjective or personal meanings for life (as epiphany described above- his selfish desire to survive by participating in a social contract) which is why we haven't all killed ourselves, but now there's only the environment left that could provide that all-encompassing, relative to all, objective thing of value in life, if that's what people are searching for.

 

Another good point, assigning ourselves as "guardians and caretakers of the earth" is kind of arrogant, I agree that we have a responsibility to protect the environment, but this is a responsibility we give ourselves. Nature doesn't need us, it'll be fine, sure we may cause some sort of disaster eventually, with some sort of mass extinction event perhaps, but life will go on, nature will survive.

 

Nature doesn't need us, we need nature. Danot is simply proving one of my original points that the idea of humanism is in descent. It is because of this that epiphany's idea of forming meaning from human relationships falls into serious trouble (Post 83)-

 

As a result it now seems reasonable for McCarthy to portray humans as scavenging cannibals completely devoid of morality or for people to infer that we're a destructive virus on the earth. Humanism is currently in free-falling descent, we have no faith in God and we have no faith in ourselves.

[flamingjimmy]

Haha what do you mean by saying "the only reason you've given for protecting nature is that it enable [sic] us to survive"-

What I meant was:

 

The only reason you've given for protecting nature is that it enables us to survive.

 

It was written in plain English (with a typo), I find it hard to believe that you didn't understand it.

 

It's quite simple, you have said that a possible meaning of life is to be the 'guardians of nature'.

 

The reason you have given for this is that nature is what enables us to survive.

 

Therefore it is quite possible to simplify your meaning by removing the need to ask 'why [be the guardians of nature]?' and just saying that the meaning of life is to survive.

 

To which again, I would ask 'why?'

 

what on earth is the point in discussing the meaning of life if we, subjectively, are not intent on surviving for as long as we can?

What's the point in discussing anything? To learn things, to have fun, to relieve boredom. How long we intend to survive in the long has little bearing on the value of this discussion to me.

 

What I've been saying is that we have lost any sense of an all-encompassing meaning of life, one that is applicable to us all. We can of course, all find subjective or personal meanings for life (as epiphany described above- his selfish desire to survive by participating in a social contract) which is why we haven't all killed ourselves, but now there's only the environment left that could provide that all-encompassing, relative to all, objective thing of value in life, if that's what people are searching for.

The problem is your 'guardians of nature' thing isn't an all encompassing meaning of life, it's just another personal subjective one.

 

Nature doesn't need us, we need nature. Danot is simply proving one of my original points that the idea of humanism is in descent (Post 83)-

Perhaps I've misunderstood what humanism is then, I really don't see how what danot said or what you said shows that.

 

What consequences does the fact that it is (in your opinion, I can't really comment having not read it) "reasonable for McCarthy to portray humans as scavenging cannibals completely devoid of morality or for people to infer that we're a destructive virus on the earth." have for humanism?

(I'm not being facetious here I really am interested).